|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 241 responses total. |
phenix
|
|
response 114 of 241:
| 
Mar 13 21:45 UTC 2002 |
no, i'm looking for the exploritory bit;)
most people on the other side of the phase have gotten "board" wit hsex
or had such bad experinces that they don't want to have it or only
have it one or two particular ways.
the "slut" phase is characterized by sex not being dirty, or sex being
dirty but fun and desierable, as opposed to an activty done soley
to please a mate or in a ritualitic fashion as some sort of bonding exercise
|
cyklone
|
|
response 115 of 241:
|
Mar 13 23:04 UTC 2002 |
Or put more simply, you want Fun Sex, not Relationship Sex.
BTW, great comments recently. This is one of the best Grex discussions
I've stumbled over in a long time.
|
phenix
|
|
response 116 of 241:
|
Mar 14 01:39 UTC 2002 |
well, yha. fun sex. though my idea of fun sex
may be more like peoples deviant/relatouinship sse
err, sex
oh well.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 117 of 241:
|
Mar 14 01:49 UTC 2002 |
Just remember, it's easier for women to go from Fun Sex to Relationship
Sex than it is to go in the other direction.
At least from what I've observed.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 118 of 241:
|
Mar 14 03:23 UTC 2002 |
I'm figuring it must be a biological urge. It's beneficial to want
the male to be around for the potential kids.
I suppose you could find some horny, unfufilled housewife.. but I
doubt that would be a good idea (y'know, being in the "other man"
role).
|
michaela
|
|
response 119 of 241:
|
Mar 14 07:20 UTC 2002 |
Um, I'm not in a slut phase, and it's not because I'm bored with sex.
|
jazz
|
|
response 120 of 241:
|
Mar 14 15:25 UTC 2002 |
There are a couple of factors in the decline in the frequency of sex
from the first months (of sexual activity, cough cough) of a relationship
until the last, and only one of them is a decline in a biological urge. The
one that's most significant to me, because it's most controllable, is that
communication becomes ever so much more important as a relationship goes on,
and a breakdown in communication can really kill a libido.
Insofar as the "sex being dirty" bit, good luck. I've never seen a
phase wherein people who think sex is somehow wrong temporarily change their
mind. Even if they did, the guilt aftermath would be untenable. I cannot
suggest strongly enough that no one, except for their own kind, date prudes.
Now about exploration, your mileage may vary. A couple of people here
have mentioned that sitting down and talking about exploration works for
them. It doesn't work for me. I work towards trust, and then once I have
trust, I experiment a little, and if they enjoy it, then I continue; if they
don't, I stop, and often later ask why. Works pretty well.
|
flem
|
|
response 121 of 241:
|
Mar 14 16:20 UTC 2002 |
It would be great if you could ask someone if they are a prude and expect an
honest answer.
|
jazz
|
|
response 122 of 241:
|
Mar 14 16:40 UTC 2002 |
You can't tell, really?
|
flem
|
|
response 123 of 241:
|
Mar 14 16:42 UTC 2002 |
Well, there are prudes and prudes. You can spot the ones that won't swear
and get offended by dirty jokes a mile away, but... I consider them prudes
also who talk a good game but are all talk. Those are harder to spot.
|
phenix
|
|
response 124 of 241:
|
Mar 14 17:00 UTC 2002 |
otherwise known as type b prudes, closet prudes, and teases
|
jazz
|
|
response 125 of 241:
|
Mar 14 17:18 UTC 2002 |
That's strange. I've really never had a tough time knowing if
someone's sexually interested or not.
|
brighn
|
|
response 126 of 241:
|
Mar 14 17:30 UTC 2002 |
I get flirted with often because I'm married, ergo, "safe," even from people
who know I'm not "safe."
|
phenix
|
|
response 127 of 241:
|
Mar 14 17:57 UTC 2002 |
yha, that safe thing is annoying.
like, duh, why would you chase after something you cant have
gah
people are stupid
|
brighn
|
|
response 128 of 241:
|
Mar 14 18:33 UTC 2002 |
yep
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 129 of 241:
|
Mar 14 23:38 UTC 2002 |
Hang on, weren't you complaining about being unattached? Or were you just
complaining about not getting laid by enough people 'cause you're poly?
;-)
|
phenix
|
|
response 130 of 241:
|
Mar 14 23:47 UTC 2002 |
no clue. i can never keep track of Grex: the whining
|
jazz
|
|
response 131 of 241:
|
Mar 15 01:27 UTC 2002 |
"As the hard drive turns ..."
It could also be a case of Denied Bisexual Privilege; not having one
partner of *each* gender.
|
brighn
|
|
response 132 of 241:
|
Mar 15 02:59 UTC 2002 |
#129> I don't complain about being unattached because I'm not unattached.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 133 of 241:
|
Mar 15 16:07 UTC 2002 |
Come on now, Jazz, you're going to give us a bad name. That's _not_ what we
want, remember? Repeat after me.... ;)
I'm starting to think that part of the problem comes from looking for too many
kinds of satisfaction from one person. That is, our culture's deemed it
proper that we get all our sexual satisfaction from one person (well, not all
of us from the _same_ person, but you know what I mean), and that's okay on
its own, but on top of that we want to get all our psychological support, most
of our companionship, our sense of stability, our sense of adventure, our
need to be admired and to admire someone, and our help around the house...
all from the same person. That's a nice ideal, but to _expect_ it -- or
worse, _demand_ it -- is gonna make your relationships devolve into strange
little bitchy dependent black holes, the way relationships often do.
And even if you don't demand it, dating someone who does will turn out just
as badly.
|
jazz
|
|
response 134 of 241:
|
Mar 15 16:34 UTC 2002 |
I'll agree with that. Except in unusual cases, it's completely
unreasonable to expect one person to meet all of your needs, and when you're
in a monogamous relationship you do need to have friends, family, and
associates, and generally step out of the bedroom into the outside world once
in a while.
That said, it doesn't mean that if you're bi, monogamy means one
partner of each gender. There are a good number of people who actually think
that. And it doesn't have anything to do with bisexuality; I enjoy the
company of blondes, brunettes, and redheads, completely equally, but I would
never assert that because they appear different I get to have one of each
and still call it monogamy.
That's BiPriv.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 135 of 241:
|
Mar 15 20:03 UTC 2002 |
(Ooh, that's what I get for putting a joke and a real response in the same
entry. I didn't mean to sound like I was plugging the "one cookie good, two
cookie better" school of bisexuality. Thanks for catching that.)
|
phenix
|
|
response 136 of 241:
|
Mar 15 20:26 UTC 2002 |
i could go for two cookies, preferably a brunette and a redhead:)
but then, i'm not bi:)
|
senna
|
|
response 137 of 241:
|
Mar 25 00:52 UTC 2002 |
People who do try to meet all of each other's needs are in serious trouble.
Ever seen a married couple that works in the same workplace? What do they
talk about at dinner? Ther's nothing there. Monogamous marriages are still
the joining of two *lives*, as in, separate lives involving different people
and experiences. You can't be healthy without that. Unfortunately, I've seen
too many people who hold out for relationships that they think will solve all
of their problems. They don't last long.
|
jazz
|
|
response 138 of 241:
|
Mar 25 02:52 UTC 2002 |
On the contrary, some people can, and do, do just that. It's not for
you. It's not for me. But some people really do crave that kind of
closeness much more than they do something interesting to talk about over the
dinner table.
|